NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12509

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12509 alt.politics.clinton:19250 alt.politics.bush:15086 alt.politics.homosexuality:8575 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10930
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!fritzs
From: [e-mail] (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:37:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 86

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|
| Because coercion does not make people like or respect each other - both
| of which are important in the maintenance of unit cohesion.

Putting people who do not like and respect each other in a position
in which they need to work together to survive tends to focus the mind.

IMO, nonsense like Tailhook will happen until women are allowed to
be fighter pilots -- a male pilot whose life depends on a female
pilot will have different attitudes about women.

| ]
| ]Second -- the same arguement was used in opposition to integrating blacks
| ]into the military, and is now used in opposition to fully integrating
| ]women into the military.  It could be used in opposition to fully
| ]integrating people from different ethnic groups (say, people of Greek
| ]and Turkish descent), or from different religions.
|
| Yes, it could, except that gayness is a behavioral trait, which is
| directly related to interpersonal relationships, while the other issues
| you raise are not.

Religion has no relationship to interpersonal relationships??? I'm glad
you said it, and not me.

| ]Purportedly, the military trains young men and women to be responsible
| ]enough to fight, kill, and die together; to use weapons of awesome power;
| ]to survive brutality and torture if captured.  I think that, in all of
| ]this character-building, the military could sort of figure out how to
| ]drill in a little tolerance.
|
| Oh my, another social engineer.

Nah -- electrical.

|  The military doesn't just train young men
| and women to be responsible - it selects those who are and hands them
| the responsibility.

Huh?  Are you saying that the military only takes incredibly mature
18-year-olds who want to blow things up?

|  While training may have some effect on people's
| attitudes and behavior, it doesn't allow one to mold behavior to one's
| desire.

What do you think boot camp is for?

| ]|  furthermore,
| ]| that (unlike the case with blacks), it is NOT important to the united
| ]| states to integrate gays at that expense.
| ]
| ]Please tell me why one is important and the other isn't?
| Number of blacks; the fact that there is no significant difference
| in behavior between blacks and whites.
| ]

Please tell me the behavioral differences between gays, bis, and straights,
and how those differences are more important than the differences between
blacks and whites.

I think you are saying that, for example, a gay Irishman will be more
behaviorally different from a straight Irishman than either will be from,
for example, a Congolese of any sexual orientation.  I think that you
are using some very strained definition of "behavior" to make that
statement.

| If you are required to shower with a bunch of people, how is it different
| that some are of a different sex? It IS different.

Sorry, man -- been there, done that.  It was only different if the
difference was appropriate.
|
| ]There are, now, quite a few gays in the military.  Is the privacy of a
| ]het more violated if sie knows that other people in the shower are gay?
|
| Yes.

Could you articulate this a bit more -- I am quite confused at this
assertion.  And... is the het's privacy more violated it sie knows that
a specific person is gay than if sie knows that, statistically, someone
else in the shower is gay, but doesn;t know who?

   Fritz